Sunday, April 26, 2009

A group of seven congregants from Topeka, Kan., set up outside Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda yesterday to protest the sexual orientation of the poet for whom the school was named.

At the 2:10 p.m. dismissal, 500 students issued forth from the campus and lined up, several students deep, along the police tape, across Whittier Boulevard from the congregants. They alternately chanted the school name and "Go home!" -- drowning out voices from across the street.

Susan Russell, 17, a junior, said she hoped the publicity would "highlight how ridiculous they are. I mean, that sign -- 'You will eat your babies' -- that doesn't even mean anything."

Sexual orientation isn't a lifestyle, it's just a way people feel. Do you think The Post would mention a straight person's heterosexual lifestyle? No, it doesn't make any sense. There are all kinds of straight people, too, in fact if you're straight then the concept is obvious to you. The only reason you would think gay people have a certain lifestyle is if you don't know any of them, if you think of them as "others" who are different from you.

It really is time for somebody at The Post to have a talk with the headline writer who composed this gibberish and the editors who let it pass through the process.

I took out the video, the embed was making these annoying clicks. You can still access the video at the link to the news story above.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Randy Thomas: Alan posted some links I found for him this afternoon (mostly through Towleroad) to stories about people being killed around the world because they have, or are reported to have same sex attractions.

I literally wept when I read about the anal torture and the young boy who was hanged. … Please pray for those with same sex attraction to be delivered from terror and allowed to live in freedom. I would like for them to know the freedom I know in Christ but I want them to stay alive long enough to get the chance! Please pray for those who are literally in jail and/or being tortured and murdered because of this.

Alan Chambers: Like what is needed with the issue of bullying in the public school, can't a broad coalition of non-like-minded people band together and say, despite our agenda (and we all have one), "violence against people who are different from what is considered normal is wrong and must end." No religious or social cause is promoted, just love and respect for our fellow man.

I lambaste Randy, Alan, Exodus et al, enough and will continue to do so when appropriate. But despite the shortcomings of these posts (no mention of US casualties), I felt their attention to these stories worthy to mention.

Most of these are the stories Randy links to, but I've taken the liberty to give some quotes from each story:

RIO DE JANEIRO, Apr 22 (IPS) - In 2008, 190 homosexuals were killed in Brazil, one every two days, representing a 55 percent increase on the previous year – a veritable "homocaust" according to gay rights activists.

According to the report, Brazil is the regional "champion in homophobic crimes," followed by Mexico, with 35 gay-bashing murders in 2008, and the United States, with 25 such killings last year out of a population that is 100 million people bigger than Brazil’s.

Gay activists believe the campaign emerged as police, militias and tribes took their cue from the clerics. ...But officials in all categories deny that they support the persecution or killing of homosexuals. [sound familiar?]

Iraqi militia have deployed a painful form of torture against homosexuals by closing their anuses using 'Iranian gum.' ... After they glue the anuses of homosexuals, they give them a drink that causes diarrhea. Since the anus is closed, the diarrhea causes death.

Iraqi leaders are accused of turning a blind eye to a spate of murders of homosexuals after 25 young men and boys were killed in recent weeks.

Gay groups claim the Iraqi government is giving tacit support to the death squads targeting young homosexuals who venture outdoors.----------------Re: Iran, Thursday, 6 March 2008A life or death decision

Peter Tatchell, of the gay rights campaign group Outrage "It is just the latest example of the Government putting the aims of cutting asylum numbers before the merits of individual cases. The whole world knows that Iran hangs young, gay men and uses a particularly barbaric method of slow strangulation. In a bid to fulfil its target to cut asylum numbers the Government is prepared to send this young man to his possible death. It is a heartless, cruel mercenary anti-refugee policy."

I had dinner with my parents the other night, and they’re staunch conservatives. All they watch is Fox “News,” and listen to Sean Hannity, etc. And my mom brought up the subject of politics, prefaced with “I don’t mean to make you mad, but…”

So then she’s like, how do you feel about Obama wasting all this money? And I’m like, what about Bush’s war in Iraq? A trillion dollars down the drain! And she actually thought that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. So I had to give her a little lesson on that, -most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, in regard to the “Axis of evil” - Iran and North Korea had nuclear capabilities before we went to war with Iraq, the republicans voted against any and all bills supporting veteran's benefits, etc. And I knew there was TONS more I could have said, but I couldn’t remember at the time. I said, you have no credibility when it comes to wasteful spending. So then she admitted that her frustrations were with Obama AND Bush. And I said, well then that’s what you need to say. And then my dad chimes in about the bailout money to the banks. And I explained about the Phil Gramm deregulation bill which helped cause the economic mess we’re in, and explained:

And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms—setting off a wave of merger mania.

And my dad was like, just let the chips fall where they may. And I responded, well then you support a depression if necessary, and he’s like, yes I do. And again, I’m like, well then that what you need to say - Conflict resolved.

Then my mother gets into the tax protest tea parties. Claiming they were grass-roots organized. Again I had to correct her. And of course I’m grinning the whole time, and asked her, do you even know what tea bagging means. She didn’t, so I told her to look it up online, and she said, well just tell me what it means, so I did, and that pretty much ended the conversation. Fortunately there were no hard feelings and it was a productive conversation. But I knew my chit, she didn’t.

Anyway, Countdown with Keith Olbermann (David Schuster hosting), did a recap of the whole debacle - The sexual innuendo, Fox News denying they were promoting it, and a hysterical YouTube video making fun of the whole thing.

The truth is however that there have literally been hundreds of studies published in peer-reviewed journals in the past twenty years or more, the preponderance of which suggest a biological basis for homosexuality in many people. Anti-gay activists refuse to acknowledge those studies. Instead, they only pick on the three weakest and easiest to disprove studies.

Frank Carrasco: In fact, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth makes the illustration that a person could be born with genes making him tall with great eye-hand coordination, but his genes alone did not make him a basketball player, in fact he had to train and be exposed to basketball before he could become a basketball player.

Running with the analogy, therefore one would have to train and be exposed to human sexuality before becoming a sexual human being. But don't train before marriage or you'll go to hell.

On April 28, 2003, psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Satinover testified before the Massachusetts Senate Judicial Committee on various issues surrounding the subject homosexuality and the future of the family in America. Dr. Satinover is a member of NARTH's Scientific Advisory Committee.

Dr. Satinover's testimony is reprinted below...

And this all comes from NARTH, so everything Satinover says is true.

I especially enjoyed the Dr's warning to Exodus Youngins that they only have a 2/3 chance of living to 30:

innumerable studies from major centers around the US and elsewhere note that a twenty-year-old man who identified himself as gay carries 30% (or greater) risk of being HIV positive or dead of AIDS by age 30.

You monogamous lesbians are apparently in the clear, but I guess as a Doctor of hate, one's allowed to throw words like homosexuality around willy-nilly, even when all you really mean by the word is two guys pokin each other in the arse.

Frank Carrasco: An interesting interpretation concerning twin studies comes from lesbian author and researcher Lisa Diamond in her latest book titled Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire in which she chronicles the natural shift of sexual identity in women over a ten year period.

She demonstrated that women can not only to go from heterosexual to homosexual but from homosexual to heterosexual as well.

So according to Lisa Diamond, it's a choice? (Video and full transcript at link)

Dr. Lisa Diamond: The women who I’ve studied, have experienced changes in the way that they characterize and experience their sexuality over time, are quite clear about the fact that they don’t experience those changes as willful.

I have bent over backwards to make it difficult for my work to be misused, and to no avail. When people are motivated to twist something for political purposes, they’re going to find a way to do it.

And what "being gay is a choice but I can't say that out loud" rant would be complete without a reference to the resounding success of the Jones and Yarhouse study?

Beginning with the bar at which their objectives were set: To see if it's ever possible for a gay person to feel attracted to the opposite sex, and if ex-gay therapy is always harmful.

Frank Carrasco: Is change possible? Recent studies as well as first hand accounts confirm that sexuality is fluid... Researchers are careful not to claim that everyone can change their sexual orientation. Such absolute statements are as irresponsible as statements saying “people are born gay.”

So if research "confirms" that sexuality is a choice fluid, then it's confirmed that homosexuality is also a choice fluid, but to say it as fact, would be just as "irresponsible" as taking the word of a gay person as fact.

Yet another rung.

Frank Carrasco: In the end, I like the way psychologist John Money put it. He compared sexuality to the development of language.

A bit about Mr. Money...

David Reimer (August 22, 1965 as Bruce Reimer – May 4, 2004) was a Canadian man who was born as a healthy boy, but was sexually reassigned and raised as female after his penis was accidentally destroyed during circumcision. Psychologist John Money oversaw the case and reported the reassignment as successful, as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned.

Milton Diamond later reported that Reimer never identified as female, and that he began living as male at age 14. Reimer later went public with his story to discourage similar medical practices. He committed suicide at the age of 38.

During his professional life, Money was respected as an expert on sexual behavior, especially for allegedly demonstrating that gender was learned rather than innate.

Money continued to publish that his work with Reimer was a "success" even 30 years later in various publications.

Remember where we came from:

Frank Carrasco: But apart from the politics of science, what does the research actually say? Is homosexuality learned or innate? Furthermore, is change possible?

So we have the use of outdated science for political purposes, the manipulation of current science, the implication that same-sex attraction is a choice, and the ever ubiquitous use of the ambiguous word "change" in order to imply same-sex attraction is a choice, while leaving room for the option to define "change" as relating exclusively to same-sex sexual "behavior."

Once again demonstrating that Exodus' primary purpose is to define, socially, and thus politically, that same-sex attraction is a choice, in order to prevent equal protection under the law for LGBT Americans.________________Some touch ups made April 17 AM

This comes from the official Transcript, but for the record, I had to make some corrections for accuracy:

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW on MSNBC. Are the cultural wars ever? In his farewell address to Focus on the Family, James Dobson, who founded the Family Research Council back in 1981 to push socially conservative causes on Capitol Hill, declared defeat.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) JAMES DOBSON, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY: The battles that we fought in the ‘80s now; we were victorious in many of those conflicts with the culture, trying to defend righteousness, trying to defend the unborn child, trying to preserve the dignity of the family, and the definition of marriage. And now we are absolutely awash in evil. Humanly speaking, we can say that we have lost all of those battles. (END AUDIO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: With major decisions on same-sex marriage in several states this month, are social conservatives waving the white flag or retrenching for the next big battle? Joining me now, Reverend Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Reverend, great to have you on tonight.

REV. BARRY LYNN, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Glad to be here.

SCHULTZ: Is it over? Or is this just a ploy by the conservatives to say it‘s over, so nobody will pay attention to them?

LYNN: Yes, it‘s mainly a ploy, because we‘ve heard this death of the religious right at least four times in the last 25 years. But just like Freddie Krueger, they always come back to Elm Street, whether we like them or not. Certainly, James Dobson knows he lost some big battles in the last decade. And I‘m out there every day trying to make sure they lose more battles in the years to come.

But he also is a man with a mound of money, no new ideas, and he and others on the religious right are going to come back to the same well; prayer in the schools, how do we get more religion into the schools? How do we harass gay and lesbian Americans more? How do we fight evilution, as they might call it.

SCHULTZ: Do you think the passing of Jerry Falwell, the story that developed before the election, with Ted Haggard, really hurt the cause of the social conservatives in this country, kind of brought them back to ground? They are not holier than thou. They have issues too. Do you think it hurt them politically?

LYNN: I think it hurt them very briefly, and maybe hurt them a little bit in the 2006 election. But I think that we make a huge mistake if we believe that they are gone in any significant way. Dobson‘s organization in the last IRS reporting year took in 145 million dollars for Focus on the Family. His political action committee added another 10 million dollars to that.

These people are just absolutely awash with funds that come from people who believe that the culture wars are not over, even if they, in fact, listen to Dobson say that about what is possible on the human level. They say, well, God still has a plan, and it is the same plan that Jerry Falwell had back in the 1970’s--anti-gay, anti-abortion.

SCHULTZ: Reverend Lynn, is the challenge now for liberals in this country to prove that they are not godless? Is this a window of opportunity right now? What do you think?

LYNN: I don‘t think we‘ve got to prove anything. Most of us—many of us are spiritual people and we‘re proud to say that. I think this administration has to be very careful, though, that it doesn‘t play the religion card too often, because, frankly, President Obama has not, for example, changed the George Bush rules on allowing discriminatory hiring in faith-based organizations that get tax dollars. Two-thirds of the American people said it was wrong in the last administration. This administration has got to work on that.

They have lost the religious right. They lost them long before he even took office. They hate Barack Obama‘s policies on stem cell. They are never going to get them back. I think it‘s important that this administration do what President Obama has said several times. I believe he says in the separation of church and state. He has to do that. And he has to demonstrate, as he frequently does, separation of church and state is not anti-religion. It‘s just pro-religion working and operating on its own, without government‘s so-called help or assistance.

SCHULTZ: Reverend, good to have you with us tonight.

LYNN: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Great to have you on the program. Thanks for your insight on this.

Monday, April 13, 2009

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), released an ad vilifying the LGBT community as a whole. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) -- of which David Smith is a part -- then (to my knowledge) launched this story. It has been in the main stream media (MSM) since at least Wednesday April 8th.

The interview below took place on Friday April 10th. So David Smith of the HRC, representing the entire LGBT community in America, had at least two full days to familiarize himself with every aspect of the NOM ad. These are the same lies the anti-gay industry trots out on a regular basis, so finding the information necessary to rip it to shreds should have been virtually effortless (read: Google), especially for someone who works for the largest LGBT lobbying organization in the country.

Yet instead of attacking the ubiquitously-used lies in the ad, he squanders coveted MSM airtime to sit back and lazily preach complacency to the choir.

To preach complacency is to teach complacency. David Smith's naïve and carefree approach to LGBT equality exemplifies why even if we were to achieve LGBT equality in this country, we wouln't be able to keep it - nor would we deserve to.

This sit back and relax attitude of his shows just how naïve he is about the determination of our enemy. Personal naïveté is one thing, to go on TV and preach that naïveté on behalf of an organization that boasts of their efforts to fight for LGBT rights, makes his spokesmanship an inexcusable liability to the cause.

Ed Schultz: Welcome back to the ED show. Yesterday on this program we played for you a new TV ad, from the opponents of same-sex marriage. This spot takes a different tactic, a ‘Hail Mary’ pass by conservatives, if you will, and that’s the subject of my playbook tonight. Let’s watch it again:

For the sake of context, I want to address the distortions in the ad before embarking on a long-winded censorious diatribe of Smith's abysmal response to it.

This is the transcript of the NOM ad, the smaller portions in brackets were not included in the ED show clip, but I'm including them to show what HRC's David Smith should have know about and responded to.

1)There’s a storm gathering. 2)The clouds are dark, and the winds are strong, 3)and I am afraid. 4)Some who advocate for same sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same sex couples. 5)They want to bring the issue into my life. 6)My freedom, will be taken away.

[ 7)I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job. 8)I’m part of a New Jersey church group, punished by the government because we can’t support same sex marriage. 9)I am a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay.]

10)But some who advocate for same sex marriage, have not been content with same sex couples, living as they wish. 11)Those advocates want to change the way I live. 12)I will have no choice. 13)The storm, is coming.

[ 14)But we have hope. A rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color are coming together in love to protect marriage. Visit nationformarriage.org. Join us.

Voice over: Paid for by National Organization for Marriage, which is responsible for the content of this ad.]

Breakdown:

1)There’s a storm gathering.2)The clouds are dark, and the winds are strong,3)and I am afraid.---Fear mongering/scare tactics

4)Some who advocate for same sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same sex couples.---Let’s see about that:

5)They want to bring the issue into my life.---In other words, he owns a TV.

6)My freedom, will be taken away.---Yes, your freedom to oppress others WILL be taken away.

7)I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.---From Box Turtle Bulletin: "This California “doctor” refers to a case that has nothing to do with marriage. Last year, the California Supreme Court ruled that a doctor that offers artificial insemination services cannot pick and chose who to offer services to."

8)I’m part of a New Jersey church group, punished by the government because we can’t support same sex marriage.---From Box Turtle Bulletin: "This “church group” actually refers to the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is not a church. It operates the Auditorium Pavilion, which was made exempt from state property tax in exchange for being open for public use and access."

9)I am a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay.---Full story here.

10)But some who advocate for same sex marriage, have not been content with same sex couples, living as they wish.11)Those advocates want to change the way I live.---I’ll get to those below.

12)I will have no choice.---Correct, you will have no choice to oppress others with impunity.

13)The storm, is coming.---More fear mongering

14)But we have hope. A rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color are coming together in love to protect marriage. Visit nationformarriage.org. Join us.---By using the word “creed,” he’s saying that this isn’t only a supremacist Christian effort, but that many other religions are also involved in the effort.

Sarcastic rebuttal: “It’s not just we Christians who are against same-sex marriages, but every blasphemous and heretical religion who’s adherents are going to burn forever in the lake of fire also support us.”

And as always, to say they are “coming together in love,” is meant to hide the fact that they are coming together in hate.

Actions speak louder than words, and in this case those actions proclaim that lies are truth. As a good friend of mine often says, “A lie in the name of God is still a lie.”

#10 and #11:

Actor #10) "Some who advocate for same sex marriage, have not been content with same sex couples, living as they wish."

Actor #11) "Those advocates want to change the way I live."

I'm sure this has been brought up, but to me, this is patently the most insidiously pernicious and offensive lie of all.

The suggestion of course being that same-sex marriage would be harmful to same-sex couples who do not wish to marry, served on a platter of implication that part of their goal is to protect these "vulnerable" gay couples from we evil stop-at-nothing same-sex marriage activists advocates.

Projectile vomit disgusting aside, Focus on the Family hack, Glenn Stanton, used this tac in his co-written (with FOF's Bill Maier) book "Marriage on Trial." A book written to show the lay bigot how to spread hatred for gays without sounding hateful or anti-gay.

From Chapter 5: Question 2: How would same-sex marriage alienate homosexuals from each other?

They go on to "prove" their point with Judith Levine's objection to "marriage itself, gay or straight," and end with "There is a third group among homosexuals, those who say "Marriage, why do we need it?"

Chapter 15 further expounds on this irrelevance: "Do All Homosexuals Want To Get Married?"---And now onto the analysis portion of the ED show interview with HRC's David Smith.

Ed Schultz: Welcome back to the ED show. Yesterday on this program we played for you a new TV ad, from the opponents of same-sex marriage. This spot takes a different tactic, a ‘Hail Mary’ pass by conservatives, if you will, and that’s the subject of my playbook tonight. Let’s watch it again:

“There’s a storm gathering. The clouds are dark, and the winds are strong, and I am afraid. Some who advocate for same sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same sex couples. They want to bring the issue into my life. My freedom, will be taken away.

Some who advocate for same sex marriage, have not been content with same sex couples, living as they wish. Those advocates want to change the way I live. I will have no choice. The storm, is coming."

Ed Schultz: This ad is a game change for the National Organization for Marriage which created the commercial, has made same-sex marriage about your freedoms, they claim same-sex marriage affects you and your rights.

Some background here, two more states have legalized same-sex marriage this month. And today, New York’s governor Patterson said he’ll support and sign a gay marriage bill.

The Human Rights Campaign released this response to the television spot yesterday. They say “This ad is full of outrageous falsehoods, and they don’t even come out of the mouths of real people.” They’re of course pointing out that this ad has got actually actors doing all of this.

Joining me now is David Smith who’s the Vice President of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian right’s organization. Mr. Smith, thank you for joining us, ah, what’s the big deal? It’s just another ad by an advocacy group. How big is this?

HRC’s David Smith: Well I don’t think it’s a big deal to be honest with you. It’s too bad Boris Karloff isn’t still alive, they could have hired him to really scare people.

Is it going to work? No, of course not. Let’s go back to what they actually--the court in Iowa, one of the states you just referenced said, is that gay and lesbian couples are no different than heterosexual couples. We love the same, we’re committed the same, we parent the same, we look out for one another the same, the only difference is the law treats us differently. And the Supreme Court said that there’s no justification, no constitutional justification to keep these people from being allowed to marry.

Ed Schultz: Mr. Smith, how many other states do you anticipate are going to be following the four states, the most recent, Vermont. How many more states do you think?

David Smith: Yeah, it’s hard to put a number on it, but New York is it as you said, possibly New Jersey, Maine, Rhode Island, perhaps in the future. So it is something that is being looked at across the country. In California the Supreme Court is deciding whether Proposition 8, which invalidated marriages in that state, should stand. But none the less, if that’s not a successful ruling, it will likely come on the ballot. So it’s an ongoing struggle.

Ed Schultz: Now during the mid-term, do you think it will be back to the g-word for the republicans, you know, that ‘gays, guns, and God,’ I mean here we go. I mean it looks to me like they’ve run out of issues, they don’t want to support the president on anything, so they’re now working over the gays and lesbians.

David Smith: I think they do so at their own peril, the country’s changed. We’re all facing difficult economic times, two wars, if they’re going to focus on attacking people for political gain, that’s not going to sell with the American public, they want solutions for everybody.

Ed Schultz: Don’t you think it’ll sell in Red States?

David Smith: It might sell in some parts of the country, but Ed, I think the country’s changed, it’s changing. This week we’ve seen a turning point. Now we still have a lot of work to do, we have to roll up our sleeves and educate and talk to our neighbors, and show that the sky is not going to fall, as it didn’t fall in Massachusetts or Connecticut, and won’t fall in Iowa, it won’t fall in Vermont.

Ed Schultz: Well the big thing about Vermont, is the fact that there were enough votes through both the House and the Senate to override a veto.

David Smith: Yeah, it’s the first state to pass it through the legislature.

Ed Schultz: Is this a barrier broken? And then Iowa in the middle of the country, in the farmbelt goes along with this. Is this a barrier, and really a red letter day mark in a turning point in America?

David Smith: Yeah, well like a landmark, because it’s the first time marriage was enacted by the legislature. But you know in our history, our nation’s history, the courts have often times been ahead of where public opinion was on a particular issue. But they’ve caught up, look at Massachusetts. There was 42% only supported marriage in 2004 when that was enacted. But 5 years later in 2008, 59% of people in that state support it.

So once they have a chance to live with their gay and lesbian neighbors, they know that there are no problems, and all the threats and all the scary things conjured up in that commercial you just aired, won’t come to fruition, everything will be fine.

Ed Schultz: So do you think that the Federal Marriage Amendment is finally dead in the conservative movement?

David Smith: Well there’s no appetite in Congress for that. It’s never dead, because…it's congress. But there’s no indication that there’s a willingness to move forward on that.

Ed Schultz: Ok, Mr. Smith, good to have you with us tonight…

David Smith: And congratulations on your show.

Ed Schultz: Well, thank you.

David Smith: Yeah, it’s really great.

Ed Schultz: I appreciate that, we’ll sure have you back…

David Smith: Thank you.

Ed Schultz: …as this issue is going to be very contentious in the debate. Thanks so much.

David Smith: Thank you.

First of all, on the the HRC staff page, Smith is listed under "Programs," and not under "Executive," like Joe Solmonese and Susanne Salkind are. Click on the David Smith page, and his title is listed as "Vice President of Programs."

As vice president of programs, David M. Smith directs the policy and strategy of the Human Rights Campaign as well as the public education programs of the HRC Foundation. He oversees efforts related to federal and state legislative goals, political action and electoral strategy, grassroots outreach, media relations and polling research.

1) Either HRC needs to update their staff descriptions page, or David Smith of the HRC did not correct Ed Schultz when he should have.

Ed Schultz: what’s the big deal? It’s just another ad by an advocacy group. How big is this?

HRC’s David Smith: Well I don’t think it’s a big deal to be honest with you. … Is it going to work? No, of course not.

Translation: Do scare tactics work? No, of course not.

David Smith: Let’s go back to what they actually--the court in Iowa, one of the states you just referenced said, is that gay and lesbian couples are no different than heterosexual couples. We love the same, we’re committed the same, we parent the same, we look out for one another the same, the only difference is the law treats us differently.

All of that is a given. We’ve been communicating that for years now and have found that it is grossly insufficient. Why? Because it does nothing to counter the lies and scare tactics that the anti-gay industry churns out in response. For example:

“Activist judges in Iowa have granted special rights to homosexuals - a class that defines itself by its sexual behavior.”

David Smith: And the Supreme Court said that there’s no justification, no constitutional justification to keep these people from being allowed to marry.

What you could have said about the opinion that would have been more effective, was the court’s finding that “The benefit denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so “closely correlated with being homosexual” as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and lesbian people as a class.””

In other words, in addition to saying there's no justification to prevent gay people from wedding, they also said that the targeted discrimination against us, is what defines us as a "class" of people.

Sure, they would have come back with the “a class that defines themselves by their sexual behavior” canard, but at least the concept that we are human beings that don’t define ourselves by our sexual behavior any more so than anyone else would have been put out there for the collective to absorb.

It also would have rebutted the “special rights” canard on every level (hate crimes, job discrimination, etc.).

Ed Schultz: Now during the mid-term, do you think it will be back to the g-word for the republicans, you know, that ‘gays, guns, and God,’ I mean here we go. I mean it looks to me like they’ve run out of issues, they don’t want to support the president on anything, so they’re now working over the gays and lesbians.

David Smith: I think they do so at their own peril, the country’s changed. We’re all facing difficult economic times, two wars, if they’re going to focus on attacking people for political gain, that’s not going to sell with the American public, they want solutions for everybody.

A perfect example of his naïveté. Difficult economic times and being at war are the perfect conduits for ensuring a climate of fear. And when people are afraid and frustrated, they are ripe for manipulation. Which the politicians, especially Republicans, are only too eager to exploit. And scapegoating, and “attacking people for political gain” are tried and true methods that work. And if the past few months have taught us anything about Republicans, if something doesn’t work, they do it more.

David Smith: …if they’re going to focus on attacking people for political gain, that’s not going to sell with the American public, they want solutions for everybody.

The past 8 years disproves that over and over again. Where the hell have you been?

David Smith: So once they have a chance to live with their gay and lesbian neighbors, they know that there are no problems, and all the threats and all the scary things conjured up in that commercial you just aired, won’t come to fruition, everything will be fine.

And the people who define themselves by their hatred of gays, and who believe that God will punish the U.S. if gay people aren’t quashed in every way possible, will give up, go home and accept their seething rage and terror of God’s judgment as just something they have to live with.

Do you do stand up? You should. In either case, you should quit your day job.

Ed Schultz: So do you think that the Federal Marriage Amendment is finally dead in the conservative movement?

David Smith: Well there’s no appetite in Congress for that. It’s never dead, because…it's congress. But there’s no indication that there’s a willingness to move forward on that.

No, not just because “it’s congress.”

The Federal Marriage Amendment will never die because it’s the one thing that will not only nullify any and all laws supporting marriage equality, but will also make every court in the land subservient to its constitutional definition of marriage - one man, one woman.

It was designed specifically by anti-gay organizations to circumvent the power of the judiciary. Congress is just a pawn to be used to implement it.

Monday, April 6, 2009

Randy Thomas: “Let me be clear. I do believe in the American way of government but I believe defining marriage should be decided by the people through the direct use of referendums/propositions and especially the … legislature”

“...not a couple of lawyers representing clients in front of a panel of judges.”

That whole court system thing has always Bothered me too. We need a referendum / proposition / legislature to do away with America's unnecessary third wheel of justice.

Lest America lose its untapped reservoirs of power of the people over certain people.

The two houses of Vermont's legislature voted last week for a same-sex marriage bill -- four votes short of a veto-overriding majority -- and Gov. Jim Douglas (R) vetoed it Monday. But Tuesday, several house members who voted against it last week switched sides to support the override, making gay marriage law.

The final vote was 100 to 49 to override the governor's veto. The initial vote last week was 94 to 52. Vermont has no mechanism for a citizen referendum to override the law.

Which is why we need a Federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. In order to set a precedent to deny states the freedom to govern themselves.

Randy Thomas on Vermont: I don't think this is wise, my heart is broken over the redefinition of marriage and am concerned about its impact. Regardless, from what I know, I can respect the process Vermont took a lot better than any other of the other four states that have redefined marriage through direct (CA in play, IA, CT and MA (MA court forced Legislature and Governor's hand)) judicial activism.

I don't know what's more disturbing, the fact that he's being consistent, or the notion that he'd support his own execution if majority ruled.

“Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation.

In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 441. The benefit denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so “closely correlated with being homosexual” as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and lesbian people as a class.”

And:

Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views.

A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.

The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past.

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Stephen Sackur of BBC’s HARDtalk: I suppose there’s this intangible question of image, and Jamaica’s image arguably right now is not altogether positive. And one other aspect of that I’ll put to you…

Bruce Golding, Prime Minister of Jamaica: We have one major problem, one major problem so far as that image is concerned, our crime rate. We have to bring that down. We have to use whatever resources we can to bring that down.

Stephen Sackur: We’ve talked extensively about that, let me put another to you, and that is, Jamaica’s attitude to homosexuality. That is a problem. If you listen to human rights watch’s Rebecca shleifer, she says “homophobia in Jamaica is the worst she has ever seen.” The New York Times just ran a big story just a couple of months ago, there was a case in Mandeville, a crowd storming a house, four men having dinner were trapped and brutally assaulted because they were believed to be gay, and that was not unusual. What are you doing about it?

PM Bruce Golding: Well, we have given instruction that crimes against persons because of their sexual orientation must be pursued with the same vigor that any other crime is pursued.

Stephen Sackur: But they’re not, are they?

PM Bruce Golding: Generally speaking they are, they are now. We do have a long standing culture that is very opposed to homosexuality. I believe that that is changing, I believe there is greater acceptance now, that people have different lifestyles. That they must be-- there privacy must be respected, but it’s a process that’s going to take time.

Stephen Sackur: Are you, Prime Minister, more accepting now? Because in 2006 you were quoted in the Sunday Herald Newspaper as saying, quote “Homosexuals will find no solace in any cabinet formed by me.”

PM Bruce Golding: Well, in appointing a cabinet, a prime minister exercises judgment. He exercises--that is his exclusive responsibility. There’s no right to be in a cabinet.

Stephen Sackur: No but you just told me that you believe that Jamaica is on track to give real equality before the law to homosexuals, but you yourself have said that ‘homosexuals find no solace in any cabinet formed by me.’

PM Bruce Golding: That has nothing to do with equality before the law. People…

Stephen Sackur: Do you not have a duty to consider people on their merits, for cabinet positions, indeed in any part of government?

PM Bruce Golding: No, I consider people in terms of their ability, and the extent to which they are going to be able to exercise their functions with independence.

Stephen Sackur: You also clearly and patently consider them in terms of their sexuality.

PM Bruce Golding: No no, but that’s a decision that I make. That’s a decision that every prime minister makes. A prime minister must decide what he feels would represent to the Jamaican people. A cabinet of ministers who will be able to discharge their functions without fear, without favor, without intimidation. That’s a choice that I have made, I made that choice.

Stephen Sackur: What kind of signal does that send about Jamaica to the outside world, indeed to potential investors, the countries that look at Jamaica and…

PM Bruce Golding: One signal that it sends is that Jamaica is not going to allow values to be imposed on it from outside. We’re going to have to determine that ourselves. And we’re going to have to determine to what extent those values will adapt over time, to change, to change in perceptions, and to change in understanding as to how people live. But it can’t be on the basis that lobby groups, far and away from Jamaica, are going to start to define for Jamaica how it would must establish it’s standards and it’s own morals.

Stephen Sackur: Do you want to live in a Jamaica, in the future, where homosexuals can be a part of your cabinet or any cabinet?

PM Bruce Golding: I want to live in a Jamaica where persons are free to conduct their private relations. But I’m not talking about leading Jamaica in a direction where it’s own values are going to be assaulted by others. And the same…

Stephen Sackur: With respect, that was not an answer to my question, let me put it to you one more time. Do you in the future, want to live in a Jamaica, where a gay man or a gay woman can be in the cabinet?

PM Bruce Golding: Sure they can be in the cabinet, not mine.

Stephen Sackur: Well they can’t be in yours.

PM Bruce Golding: Not mine.

Stephen Sackur: No, but do want--do you think…

PM Bruce Golding: Not mine.

Stephen Sackur: Do you want to live in a Jamaica where they can be and they should be, and it would be entirely natural for them to be so.

PM Bruce Golding: I do not know that that is necessarily the direction which I want my country to go.

Stephen Sackur: We talked a little bit about poverty, before we finish, do you believe, and you’ve said you can deliver on some of these security issues, other issues, can you deliver for the people in Kingston and other cities who are living in urban poverty right now, can you lift them out over the next few years?

PM Bruce Golding: It’s particularly challenging, it would be challenging in any circumstances, particularly challenging now because the global economic situation as you know, is so hostile to countries like Jamaica. What we intend to do is to amass all of the resources that we have available to us, to pull together all of the government agencies and to see on the basis of prioritizing, to see how much we can impact on those social conditions.

Stephen Sackur: Bruce Golding, thank you very much for being on HARDtalk.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Newscaster: Meanwhile, a member of parliament from South West St. Ann, (an express?) was made of what some consider a surprising and stinging attack on the country’s gay community. Expressing his dismay that not only do they portray a negative aspect in society, but he is worried some of them have been granted firearm licenses.

Earnest Smith; MP, South West St. Ann: I am very concerned that homosexuals in Jamaica have become so (____?). They have formed themselves into organizations. They are in the street, in fact they’re abusive, they are violent, and something that the Minister of National Security must look into---why is it that so many homosexuals are holders of licensed firearms?

Newscaster: Now, the outspoken Mr. Smith was contributing to a debate on a sexual offenders registry in Parliament yesterday. He also went on to mention what could be construed as a recent and potentially contentious media report, which he argues proves his point, that homosexuals dominate some of our essential services.

MP Earnest Smith: There was a report recently which has never been challenged. Which speaks to the fact that our security forces, particularly the Jamaica constable force, has been overrun with homosexuals.

There’s a report, a front page report in one of our newspapers - it has never been challenged.

April 8, 2007 … the crowd broke the windows with bottles and shouted … “We want no battyman [gay] funeral here. Leave or else we’re going to kill you. … But instead of protecting the mourners, police socialized with the mob, laughing along at the situation.

February 14, 2007 ... The men took refuge in a store … while a crowd of at least 200 people gathered outside, calling for the men to be beaten to death because they were gay. The men called local police … When officers arrived, instead of protecting them, they verbally abused the victims, calling them “nasty battymen,” and struck one in the face, head, and stomach.

And once again:

MP Earnest Smith of South West St. Ann: Why is it that so many homosexuals are holders of licensed firearms?

I now see how that could be a problem. Clearly these homosexual firearm holders aren’t using them against gay people often enough.